I usually get invites to “revise & resubmit” (only on one occasion received an acceptance with minor revisions) but this time I received a “reject & resubmit”.
Could someone please explain the difference?
I’m a bit embarrassed that I don’t know the diffference. I’ve heard others make reference to reject & resubmit but it’s my first time getting one.
-AP trying to get tenure
A reject and resubmit seems to be a new claasifocatiom for a weak R&R. The editor feels that the requisite revisions are too major and an outcome too uncertain for a generic R&R, but acknowledges that there is something worthy in the paper that it might be well-suited for the journal if you managed to address all of the concerns. There is no commitment to send it back out to the same or even new reviewers if the revised version does not appear to have addressed the main flaws, but you are welcome to try again if you think you have.
A reject and resubmit seems to be a new claasifocatiom for a weak R&R. The editor feels that the requisite revisions are too major and an outcome too uncertain for a generic R&R, but acknowledges that there is something worthy in the paper that it might be well-suited for the journal if you managed to address all of the concerns. There is no commitment to send it back out to the same or even new reviewers if the revised version does not appear to have addressed the main flaws, but you are welcome to try again if you think you have.
Thanks!! I appreciate your responding. You’re right — the editor noted that the paper was interesting, novel, etc. Both reviewers brought up only minor points, though so I was surprised with the reject (rather than revise) & resubmit.
Thanks, again!
Did the editor give any additional hints, beyond what was expressed by the reviewers, as to how he/she would want to see the paper changed before resubmission?
Otherwise, I agree that a reject and resubmit seems strange if all of the reviewer suggestions were minor.
A few years ago, editors discover that they could trick the journal's response time stats (from first submission to acceptance/publication) by rejecting and resubmitting instead of revising and resubmitting. A weak paper with potential will be Rejected & R to (possibly) save one round
End of story.
I am in the middle of working on revisions for a reject and resubmit.
From what I can tell my paper got a reject and resubmit because the requested changes had a high probability of destroying my results.
I think in my case the execution is not good enough but the editor likes the idea.
Sitting on it now and not sure how and when I should start working on it.
I was actually not going to bother with the Rej&R at first but after thinking about it I figured I was going to get a lot of the same comments elsewhere.
Also, aside from potentially destroying my paper the revisions were really not that onerous so it seemed silly to not just do the revisions.
A reject and resubmit is not a new type of a revise and resubmit. A reject and resubmit is a rejection without closing the door on one being able to submit the same paper to the same journal after the rejection. When one does resubmit, a new set of referees will most likely be chosen too; it’s viewed as a new submission. Also, it is an easy way to increase the rejection rates of the journal.
Editor here: I use reject and resubmit when there is a good idea in the paper but the paper needs a lot of work and it's hard to predict the outcome. Success rate (acceptance) rate is 40-50 percent while a standard revise and resubmit has much higher chances of acceptance.
What decent journal in econ has a 40-50 percent acceptance rate?
Editor here: I use reject and resubmit when there is a good idea in the paper but the paper needs a lot of work and it's hard to predict the outcome. Success rate (acceptance) rate is 40-50 percent while a standard revise and resubmit has much higher chances of acceptance.